Soccer Analyst for Fox Soccer Report and Fox Soccer News 24/7 from 2001 to 2013 and I can now be seen on Soccer Central in Canada. I have been a soccer writer and broadcaster for over 20 years and I have followed the world's game for as long as I care to remember. I also write a regular column at soccerly.com.

The Numbers That Show The Inequity Of The FIFA 2014 World Cup Draw

This is a follow up to yesterday’s post that highlighted some of the factors that will make next summer’s World Cup Finals unique but unfair.

The chosen format has many of the countries criss-crossing Brazil and having to cope with multiple long distance flights, fluctuating temperatures as well as the built-in inequity of some countries playing games in a far shorter time span than others should they reach the knock-out stage.

First of all, here is the mileage that each team will rack up during just the group stages from high to low based on their draw position.

Location

Distance miles to

Position

Game 1

Game 2

Game 3

Game 2

Game 3

Total

USA

Natal

Manaus

Recife

1,720

1,762

3,482

Croatia

Sao Paulo

Manaus

Recife

1,667

1,762

3,429

Cameroon

Natal

Manaus

Brasilia

1,720

1,202

2,922

Uruguay

Fortaleza

Sao Paulo

Natal

1,443

1,443

2,886

Portugal

Salvador

Manaus

Brasilia

1,621

1,202

2,823

Brazil

Sao Paulo

Fortaleza

Brasilia

1,473

1,050

2,523

Switzerland

Brasilia

Salvador

Manaus

660

1,621

2,281

France

Porto Alegre

Salvador

Rio

1,432

752

2,184

Bosnia

Rio

Cuiaba

Salvador

980

1,191

2,171

Ivory Coast

Recife

Brasilia

Fortaleza

1,031

1,050

2,081

Honduras

Porto Alegre

Curitiba

Manaus

340

1,701

2,041

England

Manaus

Sao Paulo

Belo Horiz.

1,667

305

1,972

Netherlands

Salvador

Porto Alegre

Sao Paulo

1,432

528

1,960

Italy

Manaus

Recife

Natal

1,762

158

1,920

Nigeria

Curitiba

Cuiaba

Porto Alegre

808

1,041

1,849

Japan

Recife

Natal

Cuiaba

158

1,573

1,731

South Korea

Cuiaba

Porto Alegre

Sao Paulo

1,041

528

1,569

Costa Rica

Fortaleza

Recife

Belo Horiz.

391

1,020

1,411

Greece

Belo Horiz.

Natal

Fortaleza

1,138

271

1,409

Russia

Cuiaba

Rio

Curitiba

980

420

1,400

Australia

Cuiaba

Porto Alegre

Curitiba

1,041

340

1,381

Ghana

Natal

Fortaleza

Brasilia

271

1,050

1,321

Chile

Cuiaba

Rio

Sao Paulo

980

223

1,203

Algeria

Belo Horiz.

Porto Alegre

Curitiba

834

340

1,174

Spain

Salvador

Rio

Curitiba

752

420

1,172

Iran

Curitiba

Belo Horiz.

Salvador

510

600

1,110

Ecuador

Brasilia

Curitiba

Rio

672

420

1,092

Argentina

Rio

Belo Horiz.

Porto Alegre

212

834

1,046

Germany

Salvador

Fortaleza

Recife

640

391

1,031

Colombia

Belo Horiz.

Brasilia

Cuiaba

388

544

932

Mexico

Natal

Fortaleza

Recife

271

391

662

Belgium

Belo Horiz.

Rio

Sao Paulo

212

223

435

This totals close to 57,000 miles – at South Africa 2010 it was half as much with the 32 countries traveling 28,864 miles during the group stage.

It should be noted that the mileage is based on venue to venue trips. Most countries will set up a permanent camp and travel back after matches. This will increase the mileage – in some cases substantially.

Here are the countries/positions that will suffer the highest average temperatures at the group stage.

Draw

Temperature

Position

Game 1

Game 2

Game 3

Average

Italy

90

84

84

86

USA

84

90

84

86

Japan

84

84

88

85

Mexico

84

86

84

85

Cameroon

84

90

79

84

Germany

82

86

84

84

And the equivalent for countries/positions that will enjoy the most moderate temperatures.

Temperature

Position

Game 1

Game 2

Game 3

Average

Algeria

75

68

66

70

Iran

66

75

82

74

Netherlands

82

68

72

74

Argentina

79

75

68

74

Here are the positions that will endure the biggest temperature swings.

Position

Temp. Range

Honduras

24

Australia

22

Nigeria

22

Russia

22

South Korea

20

And the fortunate ones who will experience very little difference.

Position

Temp. Range

Mexico

2

Japan

4

Germany

4

Italy

6

USA

6

Here is a summary of the number of days from each countries opening game to the Final in Rio on July 13, 2014.

Position

Days

Brazil, Croatia

31

Mexico, Cameroon, Spain, Neth., Chile, Aust.

30

Colombia, Greece, Ivory C, Japan, Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy

29

Switz., Ecuador, France, Hond., Argentina, Bosnia

28

Iran, Nigeria, Germ., Portugal, Ghana, USA

27

Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea

26

And a summary of the positions that appear to have a good chance of enjoying the best overall conditions during the group stage.

Temperature

Position

Distance

Avg

Range

Comp. Days

Mexico

662

85

2

30

Colombia

932

81

13

29

Ecuador

1,092

75

13

28

Costa Rica

1,411

82

11

29

And the positions that you need to be worried about after your country’s name has been drawn from one of the four pots.

Position

Distance

Temp Avg

Temp Range

Comp. Days

USA

3,482

86

6

27

Portugal

2,823

84

11

27

Uruguay

2,886

81

14

29

Croatia

3,429

82

18

31

On a group by group basis the countries that emerge from B may be be fresher than others qualifying from most of the remaining groups. The same “advantage” may accrue to qualifiers from group H but it is likely to dissipate on account of the shorter overall rest time from opening game to the final match.

Now let’s see what Friday brings.

*A thank you to World Soccer and Tim Vickery for initial thoughts that sparked the idea for this column and Sunday’s.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

You’ve got some confusion going on between Cuiaba and Curitaba – not that I can blame you, I’m running into the same issues with my analysis! Cuiaba to Rio is 980 miles, Curitaba to Rio is 420 miles. For H3, the numbers match B3′s mileage when the 2nd number for H3 should be 420; and B1 Rio to Curitaba should be 980, not 420. I think those are the only issues, but I might have missed one. Regardless, excellent analysis! I’m looking at the implications for the Round of 16 games, and they could be huge. If A3 comes in 2nd in Group A, and B2 comes in 1st, B2 will have traveled 3400 miles and A3 will have traveled 1050 miles. Insane disparity.

Thanks for the catch – appreciated and now corrected. The more I look at the format the more it becomes apparent that FIFA has been negligent in allowing Brazil to even propose such a structure let alone implement it.

We were working on the same analysis I guess. I turned the distances that have to be covered into a video, including the longest distance a team can cover during the World Cup. Insane distances. But we may have to get used to it, because Russia 2018 will not be any different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpRMJHCAYSk

I think it the organization didn’t thought this through. How can you justify this, not only to the players, but also to the fans. I mean, the US fans have to travel from the Atlantic coast to the rain-forest, while Belgium fans can relax on the beaches of Rio and Sao Paulo and can take a bus to the next venue. I hope US fans get their money’s worth.

Come on there are lots of ways to look at this – for example couldnt we say that those countries that do the most travel, experience the extreme temperatures, etc. in the early stages are better climatised for when they advance? FIFA dont exist in a vacuum and they would have taken advice from people on the ground in Brazil.